With
all the ballyhoo in Washington and the big media over nominations
to the Supreme Court, it dawned on me that, if I were a Senator, I
should ask but one question: whether the nominee is philosophically
a Bolshevik.

This
is neither a jest nor an exaggeration. For anyone who pays attention
to recent decisions of the Supreme Court realizes that many of the
Justices have, wittingly or unwittingly, ingested the fundamental
teachings of Marxism-Leninism in their formation in law schools and
their careers in the legal profession, and are now regurgitating these
pernicious precepts in their opinions.

(1)
The first of these teachings is THE VANGUARD OF THE PROLETARIAT. This
is the notion that a small, select group is destined, perforce of
historical or economic determinism or some other mystical power, to
lead the rest of society towards "progress" and "perfection." Such
thinking is the very apex of elitism: "The vanguard" always knows
better than "the masses." Indeed, "the vanguard" imagines itself as
appointed to rule, not only in the name of the masses, but in the
place of the masses, over the masses, and against the will of the
masses.

In
the constitutional context, "the vanguard of the proletariat" doctrine
means that We the People no longer "ordain and establish this Constitution,"
as the Constitution itself proclaims in its Preamble. And We the People
no longer control the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
Instead, a little clique of Justices, surrounded by a gaggle of jejune
law clerks still wet behind the ears from law schools, does. More
than that: They know better than not only We the People but also the
Founding Fathers.

Unashamedly,
they say as much. In Lawrence v. Texas, a majority of the Supreme
Court told America that,

[h]ad
those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known of the components of
liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more
specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times
can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that
laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.

539
U.S. 558, 578-79 (2003) (Kennedy, J., for the Court). That the men
who wrote the Constitution in order, as the Preamble recites, to "secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" did not "know[
] of the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities" would
no doubt have surprised James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry,
and even Alexander Hamilton. Men of their stamp would doubtlessly
be suspicious of modern-day Justices who claim some special "insight"
into these matters. And they would be leery that Justices who today
know that "laws once thought necessary and proper, in fact serve only
to oppress" may tell America tomorrow that laws the Founding Fathers
once knew "serve only to oppress" are now to be welcomed as "necessary
and proper."

(2)
The second relevant Marxist-Leninist principle that misdirects America’s
Judiciary is DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM. This is the practice according
to which, once a majority of the highest political body of "the vanguard
of the proletariat" has spoken on some issue, everyone else must obey
without deviation or dissent. "Democratic centralism" is "democratic"
in form, because it involves a vote. More to the point of the exercise
of power, it embodies "centralism," because commands emanate from
the center and radiate outward. It is the absolute, arbitrary rule
of a political party, committee, or politburo, imposed upon society
from the top down.

In
the constitutional context, "democratic centralism" appears in the
Supreme Court’s arrant claims that "the interpretation of the [Constitution]
enunciated by th[e Supreme] Court * * * is the supreme law of the
land," and that a decision of the Supreme Court "cannot be reversed
short of a constitutional amendment." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,
18 (1958); and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 176 (1976). That is,
according to the Justices who make such pronouncements, their decisions
are the Constitution; and if We the People do not like those decisions,
they must engage in the backbreaking process of changing the Constitution.

In
lawyers' jargon, this is the doctrine of "judicial supremacy." Supremacy,
not only over the two coordinate branches of the General Government
(Congress and the President), but also over We the People as a whole.
More accurately, it should be described as the fallacy or the fraud
of "judicial supremacy." For it cannot possibly apply to the coordinate
branches of the General Government, inasmuch as a "coordinate" branch
of government is "one [that] has no power to enforce its decision
upon the other [coordinate branch]." Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins,
94 U.S. 260, 268 (1877). And it cannot possibly apply to We the People,
because "We the People * * * ordain and establish th[e] Constitution"
on an on-going, perpetual basis. U.S. Const. preamble. And "[t]he
power to enact carries with it final authority to declare the meaning
of the legislation." Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949).
As the Founding Fathers' legal mentor William Blackstone made clear,
"whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate
vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be
decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth
any other tribunal to resort to." Commentaries on the Laws of England
(American ed., 1771-1773), Volume 1, at 212. If the Justices do not
know this, they are simply incompetent to hold their offices. If they
do know it, in claiming "judicial supremacy" they are usurping power
in defiance of their “Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"
(Article VI, Clause 3), and are disqualified from office on that account.

Of
course, the "democratic centralism" of "judicial supremacy" succeeds
today only because the Constitution's mechanism of checks and balances
is not being brought into play. The cowardice and complicity of politicians
in Congress is not the only explanation for this sorry state of affairs.
Arguably even more responsible are the tens of millions of Americans
who refuse to recognize that their own freedom requires self-government,
and that self-government requires them to take the reins of government
into their own hands. Either they will rule themselves, or someone
else will rule them, and in a way they will find most disagreeable.
Worse yet, time is running out. Americans had better act quickly,
because the "democratic centralism" of "judicial supremacy" is proving
itself an increasingly defective, dangerous, and even demented mechanism.

The
last critical adjective is not rhetorical excess. In Lawrence v.
Texas, a majority of the Supreme Court repeated the dictum of
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that "[a]t the heart of liberty
is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning,
of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." 539 U.S. 558,
574 (2003), quoting from 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). This is nothing
less than a license to refuse to face reality as it truly is, but
instead to live in a dream world of self-generated illusions. In the
exercise of charity, what must one call such a notion that has rationalized
the deaths through abortion of millions of innocent and defenseless
human beings, other than madness? It is a notion that reeks, not only
of madness, but also of mendacity. For it provides a very selective
license. As an excuse to kill the innocent, it is highly effective.
As a reason, say, to withhold the taxes that enable public officials
to kill and maim innocent individuals across the globe, and thereby
draw the world’s hatred upon America, it is totally impotent.

(3)
The third relevant Marxist-Leninist principle that infects America’s
courts is THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. This inevitably results
from "democratic centralism" at the hands of "the vanguard of the
proletariat," and amounts to the dictatorship of "the vanguard" over
the proletariat (and everyone else). The key term here is "dictatorship."
As Lenin himself wrote, "[t]he scientific term 'dictatorship' means
nothing more nor less than authority untrammeled by any laws, absolutely
unrestricted by any rules whatsoever, and based directly on violence."
"A Contribution to the History of the Question of the Dictatorship,
in Collected Works, Volume 31, at 353 (Moscow, USSR: Progress
Publishers, 4th English edition, 1966).

Self
evidently, those who can successfully claim the final authority to
declare "the law" become "the law" for all intents and purposes. Because
they can make up "the law" as they go along, they are "absolutely
unrestricted by any rules whatsoever." And their rulings will be "based
directly on violence," because violence--of police, prosecutors, and
prisons--rather than the power of their reasoning will enforce them.

The
most blatant example of where the contemporary judicial "dictatorship
of the proletariat" must lead is the utterly fantastic "right" to
abortion created in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Common sense
and simple human decency teach any individual of good will that no
"right" for one human being to kill another innocent, defenseless
human being can possibly exist. Yet today's jurists, the products
of America's most prestigious law schools, tell this country that
some human beings are not "persons," protected by law; that they have
no rights at all; and that they may be killed for any reason the Judiciary
accepts. That is, what happens to these innocent victims is "absolutely
unrestricted by any rules whatsoever, and based directly on violence."
Indeed, in the truest sense it is the rule of violence.

To
imagine that this homicidal principle can or will be restricted solely
to unborn human beings is wishful thinking. If some human beings can
be declared "nonpersons" and stripped of all rights, then any human
beings can be reduced to that status. After all, it is only a matter
of devising a legalistic rationalization--which in any event cannot
be challenged, because a decision of the Supreme Court supposedly
"is the supreme law of the land." Terry Schiavo's is simply one notorious
case in point. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls..."

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Perhaps
the most insidious aspect of all this is how the reality of judicial
dictatorship hides behind a facade of "constitutional law," the charade
of "legal procedure," and all the deceitful mumbo jumbo of "lawful
authority," "legal ethics," and so on. The facade, charade, and mumbo
jumbo are so thin, though, that it passes understanding why so few
Americans express disapproval, let alone dismay and disgust. When
a conception as noble as constitutional law is twisted into a cloak
for genocide, something is so unnaturally wrong that even the demons
in Hell must take notice. For part 2 click below.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard:
A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

For anyone who pays attention to recent decisions of the Supreme Court
realizes that many of the Justices have, wittingly or unwittingly, ingested
the fundamental teachings of Marxism-Leninism in their formation in law
schools and their careers in the legal profession...